Blog Stats

I suppose we could continue to bury our heads in the sand but I think we should all know the latest measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the Earth System Research Laboratory at Muana Loa.

In January 2017 it measured 406.13 ppm compared with the January 2016 measurement of 402.52 ppm. I first started writing this blog in October 2007, when measurements had never exceed 400 ppm and were around 375 ppm.

For a world dominated by the puny affairs of humanity there is no interest in the the threats to humanity that the inexorable and seemingly unstoppable rise in carbon dioxide emissions bring .

Like this:

Related

6 Responses

I’ve always thought it rather suspicious that the NOAA measures atmospheric CO2 on top of a volcano which itself emits enormous amounts of CO2. Of course NOAA says measurements are adjusted to compensate but like many other aspects of the global warming superstitions, raw data is never used.

However, even if the alleged 10 year – 10% rise in atmospheric CO2 was correct surely we would have noticed some effect by now. I believe it is precisely because the general public have not noticed any change they have lost interest and perhaps also become more sceptical or even sanguine. After all warmer weather is less harmful in temperate climates. More geriatrics die from hypothermia than heat stroke.

But, HMRC hasn’t forgotten CO2 as a ‘nice little earner’. This April taxes will go up on new cars and only fully electric cars now escape vehicle excise duty.

The many ridiculous aspects of this tax become worse each year. The tax is not used to fund research into low emissions cars. It is not used to subsidise public transport. It is just spent.

Worse, the worst CO2 emitters, currently, are the very vehicles which pay no tax, i.e. electric vehicles. (When not solar or wind generated electricity) Of course electric vehicles are clean at the point of use but they are not only inefficient users of electricity due to the inefficiencies of batteries, the process of generating electricity is at best 10% efficient. Roughly speaking 100kwH electricity takes a battery electric car 100miles. The power station will have to generate approx 1500kwh to provide 100kwh to the car’s electric motor.

This is where taxation messes up the discussion. Pure electricity is taxed at 8%. Petrol is taxed at 250% Based on the retail price of petrol at £1.30 ppg cars would need to average at least 100mpg to compete with the cost of running electric cars. But it is reasonably clear that using pre-tax costs, petrol cars are more energy efficient and hence less polluting (in CO2 terms) than electric cars powered by natural gas power stations.

And what would happen if our petrol or diesel cars were replaced by electric cars. Tax would rise on electricty and we would need to increase the number of power stations by a factor of 15 i.e. from 300 to 4500. How many windmills or solar arrays woul that mean?

There is also the matter of rare earths being mined and irrevocably depleted for car batteries.

Letter to the President of America from Dr Richard Lindzen:
We petition the American and other governments to change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases, primarily Carbon Dioxide, CO2 for harsh regulation. Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm—with no environmental benefits. While we support effective, affordable, reasonable and direct controls on conventional environmental pollutants, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.

Restricting access to fossil fuels has very negative effects upon the wellbeing of people around the world. It condemns over 4 billion people in still underdeveloped countries to continued poverty.

Interesting letter. Yes, some increase in CO2 may have some beneficial effects, but overall it’s a bit like arguing that cancer is a good way of reducing obesity. As I have always held, the poison is in the dose.